Powers v. Powers, 55334

Decision Date27 February 1985
Docket NumberNo. 55334,55334
Citation465 So.2d 1036
PartiesLeslie T. POWERS v. Ruth W. POWERS.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Dale Robinson, Gulfport, for appellant.

Thelma S. Zinner, Biloxi, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C.J., SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., and SUGG, Retired Supreme Court Justice. 1

PATTERSON, Chief Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal from the First Judicial District of Harrison County. There Ruth W. Powers was granted a divorce on a counterclaim she had interposed in response to a divorce proceeding brought by her husband, Leslie T. Powers. She was awarded the divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment and was also awarded other benefits hereinafter discussed.

In the first assignment of error Mr. Powers contends the trial court's decree of divorce was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We are of the opinion the record amply supports the trial court's granting of the divorce on the ground stated. We therefore affirm on this point.

The second assignment of error is that the court's order awarding as permanent alimony the sum of not less than $200.00 per month unto the counter-claimant or one-half of her husband's gross naval retirement pay including increases whichever is greater, is in error. Powers asserts the military retirement pay is not subject to an adjudication by a state chancery court. However, Title 10, U.S.C.A., Section 1408(c)(1), vests state courts with the power to allocate military retirement pay pursuant to a divorce decree. It provides:

(c)(1) Subject to the limitations of this section, a court may treat disposable retired or retainer pay payable to a member for pay periods beginning after June 25, 1981, either as property solely of the member or as property of the member and his spouse in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction of such court.

We affirm the trial court's decree on this point.

The third assignment of error appertains to an adjudication that Powers maintain his former spouse as the irrevocable beneficiary of his Military Survivors' Benefit Plan which is currently in effect. We are of the opinion that this action of the trial court is prohibited by Title 10, U.S.C.A., Section 1450(f)(3),

(3) Nothing in this chapter authorizes any court to order any person to elect under Section 1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity to a former spouse unless such person has voluntarily agreed in writing to make such election.

Subsection (i) carries the above protection to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Petters v. Petters, 07-CA-59311
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 11 Abril 1990
    ...majority is wrong in interpreting the statute without deciding its application. Secondly, however, it is clear to me that Powers v. Powers, 465 So.2d 1036 (Miss.1985), stands for the proposition that Mississippi marital property law permits courts to divide, as alimony, a former spouse's mi......
  • Marriage of Gallo, In re
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 1988
    ...Chisnell v. Chisnell, 82 Mich.App. 699, 267 N.W.2d 155 (1978); Deliduka v. Deliduka, 347 N.W.2d 52 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); Powers v. Powers, 465 So.2d 1036 (Miss.1985); Coates v. Coates, 650 S.W.2d 307 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); In re Marriage of Kecskes, 683 P.2d 478 (Mont.1984); Taylor v. Taylor, 217 ......
  • Southern v. Glenn
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 3 Octubre 1990
    ...right as such in a serviceman's military retirement pay. 1 See Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840, 841 (Miss.1986); Powers v. Powers, 465 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Miss.1985). In these situations Newman v. Newman, 558 So.2d 821 (Miss.1990) holds that the matter of whether the spouse of a serviceman ha......
  • Crowe v. Crowe, 91-CA-0553
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 4 Agosto 1994
    ...we have defined a military retirement benefit as a marital asset to be considered in the division of marital property. Powers v. Powers, 465 So.2d 1036, 1037 (Miss.1985). See also Southern v. Glenn, 568 So.2d 281, 283-84 n. 1 The record does support the fact that while Jack was making contr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT